Can anyone explain something to me?

[busman]

Don't you agree that a wet location would subject it to excessive moisture?

It's not that I don't agree. It's just that the code doesn't say that. It gives this cryptic reference to excessive moisture under the "Uses Not Permitted" section. I don't know what this means. It's a lot like "Physical damage" and "Severe Physical Damge". The terms are undefined and that makes them hard to work with. Why can't they just use a term that we have a definition for?

Mark

 

[electrical dude]

Why would the inside of a PVC pipe be classified as a wet location? If you ran a pipe from the meter on the exterior wall down the wall 3 feet into an LB into the house and put SER in it, is that illegal? What about PVC under ground from the house to a detached garage with a 12/3 NMB in it. It's protected in pipe and isn't subject to "wet" conditions. It does get condensation in the pipe eventually making it a "damp" enviroment but not an "excessive moisture" enviroment. Can you point out where specifically it says this is wrong on the SER or the NM? A couple of us have coincidentally been having this same conversation!:-?

 

[benaround]

Mark,

334.10(A)(1) type NM cable, normally dry locations. I think the code is clear

on that.

 

[iwire]

Why would the inside of a PVC pipe be classified as a wet location?

Because it is.

If you take a look at 225.22 you will see that outdoor raceways are required to be "arraigned to drain" if they must be drained they must be wet.

I think there will be a clearer rule on this in the 2008 NEC.

If you ran a pipe from the meter on the exterior wall down the wall 3 feet into an LB into the house and put SER in it, is that illegal?

SER is listed for wet locations so that would be fine.

What about PVC under ground from the house to a detached garage with a 12/3 NMB in it. It's protected in pipe and isn't subject to "wet" conditions.

Without a doubt that is a violation, the NEC requires conductors and cables underground in raceways or enclosures to be listed for wet locations.

Check out 300.5(B).

Can you point out where specifically it says this is wrong on the SER or the NM?

Fine for SER, violation of 300.5(B) for NM or any conductor not listed for wet locations.

 

[busman]

Mark,

334.10(A)(1) type NM cable, normally dry locations. I think the code is clear

on that.

Actually, your quote comes from the "Uses permitted section" and says "Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows: For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations..." This is a permissive statement telling the inspector that it shall be permitted in that condition. It does not use the word "ONLY", so it is not limited to only those conditions. It doesn't say anywhere in that section that NM SHALL NOT be used in a damp or wet location.

Please read Section 90.5 (A) and (B) about Mandatory and Permissive rules.

Mark

 

[tallguy]

Actually, your quote comes from the "Uses permitted section" and says "Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows: For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations..." This is a permissive statement telling the inspector that it shall be permitted in that condition. It does not use the word "ONLY", so it is not limited to only those conditions. It doesn't say anywhere in that section that NM SHALL NOT be used in a damp or wet location.

Keep reading... 334.12(B)(4) states than NM "shall not be used... Where exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness".

And don't anybody jump in here and try to tell us that "dampness" isn't in Article 100 and so therefore isn't the same as a "Location, Damp":grin: :grin:

 

[busman]

Keep reading... 334.12(B)(4) states than NM "shall not be used... Where exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness".

And don't anybody jump in here and try to tell us that "dampness" isn't in Article 100 and so therefore isn't the same as a "Location, Damp":grin: :grin:

Actually if you read my earlier posts, you would see that I quoted just this phrase about excessive dampness/moisture and complained that I "don't know what this means." I would also have to jump in and say that it says "excessive moisture or dampness" which implies that some level of dampness/moisture is permissible. By that logic, it is not the same as a Damp Location.

Mark

 

[tallguy]

Actually if you read my earlier posts, you would see that I quoted just this phrase about excessive dampness/moisture and complained that I "don't know what this means." I would also have to jump in and say that it says "excessive moisture or dampness" which implies that some level of dampness/moisture is permissible. By that logic, it is not the same as a Damp Location.

My apologies, I missed that it was you that had noted that.

Looks like this will change in 2008, which should settle it I would think:

7-55 Log #203 NEC-P07 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(334.12(B)(4))
____________________________________________________________
NOTE: The following proposal consists of Comment 7-114 on Proposal 7-
115 in the 2004 May Meeting National Electrical Code Committee Report
on Proposals. This comment was held for further study during the
processing of the 2004 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. [Refer to
Proposal 7-49 (Log#200)]

Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)

Recommendation: Revise 334.12(B)(4) as revised by the Panel to read:
(4) In other than normally dry locations.

Substantiation: Because the text in the 2002 NEC in Uses Permitted has been
deleted, 334.10(A) and (C) that permit NM and NMS to be used in normally
dry locations, has been inadvertently changed. The Panel text in proposed
(334.12(B)(4)) is insufficient.
In the 2002 NEC only NMC is permitted to be used in dry, damp, or moist
locations (334.10(B)(1).
The specific use permitted for NM and NMS by the 2002 NEC, as well as
previous codes, is ?exposed or concealed in normally dry locations?. In uses
not permitted of the 2002 NEC, 334.12(a)(10)(d) does state ?Where exposed or
subject to excessive moisture or dampness,? but that was used in conjunction
with the normally dry permitted use, and actually emphasizes that NM and
NMS are not to be used in other than dry installations.
NM has always been a dry location wiring method. The text accepted by the
Panel changes that meaning without substantiation for doing so. The proposed
text above corrects this oversight.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Proposal 7-49.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
____________________________________________________________

 

[tallguy]

In addition, see 7-49 and 7-50 at the A2007 ROP. Each of these goes after this same issue.

Final wording in 2008 is to change (4) to say "In wet or damp locations".

 

[busman]

No apology necessary and thanks for the additional information. I'm glad they are finally going to clear that up.

Mark

 

[tallguy]

One more note regarding the OP issue... I would guess the inspector in question would be right with the dissenting opinion below (emphasis added):

7-51 Log #202 NEC-P07 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(334.12 Exception (New) )
____________________________________________________________
NOTE: The following proposal consists of Comment 7-105 on Proposal 7-
115 in the 2004 May Meeting National Electrical Code Committee Report
on Proposals. This comment was held for further study during the
processing of the 2004 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. [Refer to
Proposal 7-49 (Log#200)]
Submitter: Robert C. Duncan, Duncan Consulting, Inc.
Recommendation: Add Exception under 334-12.
Exception: Type NM cable installed in a raceway system are permitted in
Type I or II construction.
Substantiation: There is presently a listed NM Hybrid Cable on the market
consisting of power, communications and signaling conductors under a
common jacket. Without the Code permitting the use of this new type cable to
be installed in raceways, the provisions of 780.6, 725.55 and 800.52 cannot be
utilized.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Add an Exception following 334.12(A)(1) to read as follows:
?Exception: Type NM, NMC, and NMS cable shall be permitted in Types I
and II construction when installed within raceways permitted to be installed in
Types I and II construction.?
Panel Statement: The addition of the exception will permit the installation of
NM, NMC, and hybrid NMS cables in Type I and II construction when
installed in a raceway. The panel notes that 725.55 addresses conductor
separation between conductors and does not mention hybrid cables.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
BROWN, H.: We feel that this proposal should be rejected.
Type NM cable is not designed to be routinely installed within a conventional
raceway system.
Raceways are designed to contain building wire. Raceway systems are
allowed to contain as much as 360 degrees of total bend between pull points.
Damage to the outer sheath of NM cable will occur when installed within the
confines of the raceway articles.
Technical Substantiation should be closely reviewed by CMP 6 as this very
important issue is not entirely under the purview of CMP 7. We have
reasonable concerns relating to the ?safe dissipation? of heat of conductors
contained within a cable sheath that are further subjected to the
confinement of a raceway. This heat would contribute to conductor insulation
degradation that could ultimately lead to ground faults and short circuits....
CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT THE CODE REQUIRES THAT WE AVOID.
Raceway fill is another concern. Cables that are elliptical in shape are not
typically designed to be installed within a raceway. They are required, on
occasion, to be protected using short sections of raceway. For example: Table 1,
Chapter 9, barely makes reference to cables that are elliptical in shape. Why?
Because Type NM cables should not be routinely installed in raceway systems.
There are other safe and affordable wiring methods in the market place that
meet industry needs, without sacrificing the integrity of the code.
____________________________________________________________

 

[LarryFine]

Why would the inside of a PVC pipe be classified as a wet location?

What about PVC under ground from the house to a detached garage with a 12/3 NMB in it. It's protected in pipe and isn't subject to "wet" conditions.

Because inside a conduit or other raceway is not a location. Any conductor that is inside a raceway that is outdoors is also outdoors.

 

[jetlag]

dont understand ?

dont understand ?

He said since you can put uf in the ground you can put it in pvc something with getting air I dont know. All I know is that it does not make any sence to me what so ever

Im sorry you dont understand but I dont know how else to word it. On an outside panal box on exterior wall you have to get the branch circuit wires into the box. Im saying when the wires leave the house it is okay to put in pvc for short distance to box. If this was not allowed to be nm , the house would have to be wired with uf ,which is allowed in outside pvc. Im saying around here they let the nm pass. Forget the air thing, I just threw that in because the conduit ends as soon as it enters the carwl space and the end is open which helps dry condensation I would think.

 

[busman]

Not saying you would have to do it this way, but the whole house would not need to be UF, just to the first JB.

Mark

 

[dwellselectric]

Okay so I found in the code where it says that you can run romex in pvc ART. 334.15 (B) and my question is that it does not say for how long of a run you can run it in PVC for. Does anyone know if there is a certain distance?

 

[roger]

Okay so I found in the code where it says that you can run romex in pvc ART. 334.15 (B) and my question is that it does not say for how long of a run you can run it in PVC for. Does anyone know if there is a certain distance?

As far as you would like if it is in a dry location. Go back to pages 1 & 2

Roger

 

[dwellselectric]

Thank you Roger the AHJ said that you could olny run it short distance in pvc. I hate people who just can't admit that they are wrong

 

[dwellselectric]

Now the reason the AHJ will not let us run a 2" PVC from attic to basement is that he said it is because it has something to do with if the house ever cought on fire. But the company that my friend works for has done this on every house they wire. They just put a cap on each ends. I dont know perhaps the AHJ just have a stick up his ass or does not like my boss. Either or it really does suck

 

[tallguy]

Thank you Roger the AHJ said that you could olny run it short distance in pvc. I hate people who just can't admit that they are wrong

I'm guessing he won't take too kindly to this, but you might want to consider asking for a code reference "so I can know how short it needs to be".

 

[celtic]

I'm guessing he won't take too kindly to this, but you might want to consider asking for a code reference "so I can know how short it needs to be".

...or the ever popular:
Can you give me a code article so I can learn the proper way?